Bill Moyers knew who "they" were back in 1987

by **pugzleyca3** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:14 pm

Or at least some of "them". I stumbled onto this tape, made in 1987 and it answered a lot of questions for me. This is in two segments. If nothing else, it's a good history lesson for those of us not born yet, or too young to remember it: <A href=http://www.peace.ca/moyersvideo.htm> BILL MOYERS DOCUMENTARY 1987 The Secret Government The Constitution in Crises </A> Edited (again) to say: Warning: some graphic and disturbing material in the movie. The original film was 90 minutes, this is only 20 minutes of it, I'd love to see the entire thing. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pugzleyca3>pugzleyca3</A> at: 2/22/06 8:28 pm

by **professorpan** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:36 am

Pug, I remember seeing this the first time around. This is a great find -- required viewing.

by **snowlion2** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:50 am

A transcript is available <a href="http://www.addictedtowar.com/bill.moyers.htm">here</a>.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:02 pm

Wow. Thanks, snowLion2. Moyers said this almost 20 years ago: “Can it happen again? You bet it can. The apparatus of secret power remains intact in a huge White House staff operating in the sanctuary of presidential privilege. George Bush has already told the National Security Council to take more responsibility for foreign policy which can of course be exercised beyond public scrutiny. And a lot of people in Washington are calling for more secrecy, not less, including more covert actions. This is a system easily corrupted as the public grows indifferent again, and the press is seduced or distracted. So one day, sadly, we are likely to discover once again that while freedom does have enemies in the world it can also be undermined here at home, in the dark, by those posing as its friends. I’m Bill Moyers. Good night."

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:42 pm

Moyers knew who "they" were back in the Johnson adminstration when he ok'd the FBI's passing around of tapes of Martin Luther King's bedroom sounds. Moyers knows far more than he's letting on lately and I've become disgusted with him. Moyers was so successful selling the Vietnam War to liberals that he was recommended for the National Security Council. Moyers was the fucking DIRECTOR of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1967-1974, the Vietnam War years. He then became the 'official' safe liberal on CBS and PBS. Moyers did make that Secret Government tape back almost twenty years ago but has gone mum since on the cryptocracy of spooks and money with merely symbolic finger-wagging ever since. I think Moyers knows how bad things are and isn't able to rise above playing army chaplain to generals of fascism anymore. He's become a totem, a placebo, a place-holder, a GATE-KEEPER. Fuck, Bill. You deserted us and held out on us. Why?

by **pugzleyca3** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:18 pm

Wow! Hugh Manatee Wins, I had no idea this guy was on the CFR or about any of the other stuff you posted here. This is really making me worry about believing anything or anyone I hear or read about anymore. There are so many people and so many names, so much history that I don't know if I'll ever be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. In your opinion, do you think he was reporting honestly in this film? Since he was on the CFR he's classic NWO to me. That's all there is to that. What a disappointment for me to find this out. edited for typos Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pugzleyca3>pugzleyca3</A> at: 2/23/06 8:21 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:58 pm

Yes, Director of the Council On Foreign Relations is quite an eye-opener, isn't it? That puts him in a league with Allen Dulles, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and other fascists. Oddly, he seems sincere in his 1987 expose of the illusion of democracy. But he mourns its passing instead of shouting bloody murder. Big difference. I think at the time he was spurred by IranContra and the impending GHWBush presidency because Moyers knew what Bush I was and who he represented, the same CIA people who killed JFK and put Moyers' boss, LBJ, in the White House to be their figurehead since the secret government is the real government and has been since Eisenhower years under Nazi-supporter Allen Dulles. But after this documentary Moyers stepped back from the hard cold truth and played his role of state-sanctioned liberal in the Mockingbird media. Even when he was at the St. Louis Media Reform conference he didn't let on to the depths of control the CIA has on the media and he bloody well knows since he was in the White House at the height of post-JFK CIA control. Anyone who knows what the CFR is from the inside, well... Studying the gate-keeper left is a tad demoralizing when you find out that many 'friendlies' are just playing a role or know far more then they let on for whatever reasons, personal safety or money or status or...

by **sunny** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:37 am

'friendlies' are just playing a role or know far more then they let on for whatever reasons, personal safety or money or status or... ___________________________________________________ I think it does us no good to be so cynical. If "friendlies" are holding back for fear of personal safety or the safety of their families, you can hardly blame them. The history of the last fifty years or so is replete with the dead bodies of those who would speak truth to power in public venues, where they could actually have an impact. Do you know for sure that you would continue to speak as louldly as possible knowingyou or a loved one could be killed? Moyers had his eyes opened. That has happened to all of us here. We no longer espouse views or take actions that we used to do because of our new found knowledge. We speak and act in different ways, knowing what we know now. I, for one, no longer contribute to the Democratic party or work for their campaigns. Perhaps Moyers speaks softly, hoping those with open minds will hear him and the PTB will think he will have no effect. Being a polemicist is not for everyone, but at least he continues to try and tell the truth. Can you argue with what he actually says? We must be aware, of course, of left gatekeepers; but we must also ferret out truth where we can, sifting the wheat from the chaff, putting facts into our own context and into the framework of the knowledge we have. Because someone may be "compromised" doesn't mean we can't discern some kernel of truth in them, even if we have to read between the lines, or put what they have to say into their frame of reference.

by **km artlu** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:14 am

This is as good a thread as any for me to raise a question that's been on my mind for awhile. Lewis H. Lapham, editor of Harper's Magazine, has been a consistently scathing critic of the oligarchy, the elite and the shadow government for many years. When I came across a reference to his CFR membership, the information threw a circuit breaker in my worldview. I can't imagine how anyone could have the perceptual and cognitive grasp from which his writings flow while being 'one of them'. If you've read his work, you'll know what I mean. I know nothing of the CFR bylaws. My only theory was that perhaps membership is tenured in some way and Mr. Lapham went rogue but can't be expelled. Anybody know more about this?

by **pugzleyca3** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:43 am

Here's a link to a PDF file with their bylaws. I haven't read it, these types of files make my eyeballs go crazy. But here it is for what it might be worth: <A href=http://www.cfr.org/content/about/annual_report/ar_2005/20_bylaws-rules_068-071.pdf> BYLAWS COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS </A>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:57 am

Re: Lapham. Lewis Lapham's brother was the CIA's general counsel in the 1970s when their many crimes were being dragged out into public view. So it was interesting to read Lewis describe in last year's issue of Harpers about the right-wing noise machine his being lobbied to join up with the 1980s right-wing attempt at buying everyone they could for the anti-liberal anti-war backlash that started all those thinktanks. Lewis said 'no thanks.' Yet his brother was working as a mouthpiece for the world's largest right-wing terrorist organization, the CIA. There are quite a few media types in the CFR membership since media is a prime tool of governance and the CFR has the corporate PR mentality. (Rumsfeld recently spoke before them and bemoaned the terrorists having better PR than America. The CFR is one of those places where he'd get a genuinely sympathetic ear.) Most CFR media members are Operation Mockingbird CIA-types like Wall Street Journal editors, TV news anchors, publishers, etc. but a few probably aren't. Maybe. I heard Mark Danner give an interesting college commencement speech about living in the "post-scandal age." As in, now it is normalized. Danner wrote about the US-backed massacre of a village in El Salvador (Massacre at El Mazote) during the Reagan regime and about the torture at Abu Ghraib more recently. So I was surprised to find that Danner was on the CFR roster, too. But Danner is very understated and supports the myth of America while pointing at a few blemishes so this may be exactly the 'credibility' that the CFR desires from people like Moyers. And Danner is a regular writer for the elite-influencing New Yorker Review of Books. <a href="http://www.markdanner.com/writing.htm">www.markdanner.com/writing.htm</a> Here is a NPR/Council On Foreign Relations discussion with Danner that might illustrate this function. <a href="http://journalism.berkeley.edu/faculty/markdanner/intnpr5_28_94.html">journalism.berkeley.edu/f...28_94.html</a> And this one really puts Danner in the CFR's desired role of 'creating balance' while corporations rule. <a href="http://www.markdanner.com/wpj/Sping1998_Marooned.htm">www.markdanner.com/wpj/Sp...rooned.htm</a> Spring 1998 Marooned in the Cold War: An Exchange between Mark Danner and George F. Kennan, Strobe Talbott and Lee H. Hamilton ESSAY World Policy Journal Remember, the illusion of democracy requires a visible opposition even if it is almost no opposition at all to hold up the facade of a system "that works." Danner and Moyers fill that role well. I suspect that CFR membership is bestowed with an intent to influence and usually does, not always. But actually being Director from 1967-1974 as Moyers was is quite different from being one of the 1500 or so on the roster. As I already wrote, this is a position once held by Allen Dulles, the man who institutionalized fascist cryptocracy in America as CIA Director. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 2/24/06 3:42 pm

by **km artlu** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:14 am

Thanks to you both. I very much appreciate your responses.

by **ewastud** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:19 am

I don't think mere membership in the CFR means anything. I recall being offered membership when I returned to the US from the Peace Corps in 1982. I did not join. But I look on it as little different than joining the National Geographic Society. I admit I still don't know that much about the organization, but I am skeptical that it has that much influence on foreign policy as an organization, although certain prominent members may have independent of their position or membership in the CFR.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:44 am

<a href="http://dpls.dacc.wisc.edu/Council/appendixb_council.html">dpls.dacc.wisc.edu/Counci...uncil.html</a> This data was collected for a doctoral dissertation exploring the role of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as an important organization linking the United States "owning class" with the formation of foreign policy. The dataset includes area of residence and birth, year of birth, ethnic background, level of education, military service, occupation, median income of census tract of residence, directorships in major corporations, listing in the Social Register, and other variables for a sample of 267 members and directors of the CFR from 1922 to 1969. The Council on Foreign Relations: A Case Study of the Societal Bases of Foreign Policy Formation, 1922-1969 Appendix B: Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc., 1922-1972 * Isaiah Bowman 1921-1950 * Archibald Cary Coolidge 1921-1928 * Paul D. Cravath 1921-1940 * John W. Davis 1921-1950 * Norman H. Davis 1921-1944 * Stephen P. Duggan 1921-1950 * John H. Finley 1921-1929 * David F. Houston 1921-1927 * Otto H. Kahn 1921-1934 * Frank L. Polk 1921-1943 * Whitney H. Stepardson 1921-1966 * William R. Shepherd 1921-1927 * Paul M. Harburg 1921-1932 * George M. Wickersham 1921-1936 Succeeding Directors * Allen W. Dulles 1927-1969 * R.C. Leffingwell 1927-1960 * George O. May 1927-1953 * Wesley C. Mitchell 1927-1934 * Owen D. Young 1927-1940 * Hamilton Fish Armstrong 1928 * Charles P. Howland 1929-1931 * Walter Lippmann 1932-1937 * Clarence M. Woolley 1932-1935 * Frank Altschul 1934 * Philip C. Jessup 1934-1942 * Harold W. Dodds 1935-1943 * Leon Fraser 1936-1945 * John H. Williams* 1937-1964 * Lewis W. Douglas* 1940-1964 * Edward Warner 1940-1949 * Clarence E. Hunter 1942-1953 * Myron C. Taylor 1943-1959 * Henry M. Wriston* 1943-1967 * Thomas K. Finletter* 1944-1967 * William A. M. Burden 1945 * Walter H. Mallory* 1945-1968 * Philip D. Reed* 1945-1969 * Winfield W. Riefler 1945-1950 * David Rockefeller 1949 * W. Michael Blumenthal 1972 * Zbigniew Brzezinski 1972 * Elizabeth Drew 1972 * George S. Franklin Jr. 1972 * W. Averell Harriman 1950-1955 * Joseph E. Johnson 1950 * Grayson Kirk 1950 * Devereux C. Josephs 1951-1958 * Elliott V. Bell* 1953-1966 * John J. McCloy 1953 * Arthur H. Dean 1955 * Charles M. Spofford 1955 * Adlai E. Stevenson 1958-1962 * William C. Foster 1959 * Caryl P. Haskins 1961 * James A. Perkins 1963 * William P. Bundy 1964 * Gabriel Hauge 1964 * Carroll L. Wilson 1964 * Douglas Dillon 1965 * Henry R. Labouisse 1965 * Robert V. Roosa 1966 * Lucian W. Pye 1966 * Alfred C. Neal 1967 * Bill D. Moyers 1967 * Cyrus R. Vance 1968 * Hedley Donovan 1969 * Najeeb E. Halaby 1970 * Bayless Manning 1971 * Marshall D. Shulman 1972 * Martha D. Wallace 1972 * Paul C. Warnke 1972

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:50 am

<a href="http://www.mega.nu/ampp/cfr.html">www.mega.nu/ampp/cfr.html</a> The conferences and meetings of the Council on Foreign Relations, Council of the Americas, Royal Institute for International Affairs, Institute of Pacific Relations, Trilateral Commission, Gorbachev Foundation, Bill Gates, etc., are not places where major decisions are made or new strategies embraced. These are simply arenas where the agenda of the inner circle is imparted in camouflaged form to representative leaders from the six establishment categories (industrialists, financiers, ideologues, military, professional specialists (lawyers, medical doctors, etc.), and organized labor). These representatives also provide feedback on the status of their area of responsibility. If you were a fly on the wall at one of these conferences, you would seldom hear anything approaching ``smoking gun'' evidence of the grand design of the inner circle establishment. Most of the 3000-odd rank and file members of the CFR have no more suspicion of it than do most rank and file members of the public at large. The Bilderberg apparatus is indeed a place where one would hear noticeably more candid treatment of the strategies discussed in this compilation, but is still not by any means truly open. Bilderberg and the other gatherings are all arenas in which psychological warfare is waged on the world's visible elite. ... The Council of Foreign Relations, a cult-like like organization that journalist Richard Hardwood approvingly calls "the nearest thing to a ruling establishment in America," routinely holds meetings at which participants (including guests) are prohibited from speaking about what transpired. It's not that one would really want to listen to much of it. The men and women who have designated themselves the guardians of America's future policies are among the most boring and unimaginative folk one finds in Washington. Many are like those described by LBJ as having gone to Princeton and ended up in the CIA because their daddies wouldn't let them into the brokerage firm. Still it is not too comforting to realize that in the quiet places of Washington, the first half of the 21st century (as they never tire of calling what the rest of us call the future) is in the hands of the conceptually dyslectic. And the media is not about to challenge these folk. One good reason may be found in a 1995 membership roster of the Council on Foreign Relations as reported by Public Information Research. Here are just a few of the media CFRers: Roone Arledge, Sidney Blumenthal, David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, William F. Buckley Jr., Hodding Carter III, John Chancellor, Arnaud de Borchgave, Joan Didion, Leonard Downie Jr., Elizabeth Drew, Rowland Evans Jr., James Fallows, Leslie Gelb, David Gergen, Katharine Graham, Meg Greenfield, Jim Hoagland, Warren Hoge, David Ignatius, Robert Kaiser, Marvin Kalb, Joe Klein, Morton Kondrake, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, Jim Lehrer, Anthony Lewis, Michael Lind, Jessica Matthews, Jack Nelson, Walter Pincus, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Rather, Stephen Rosenfeld, A. M. Rosenthal, Diane Sawyer, Hederick Smith, Laurence Tish, Garrick Utley, Katrina vander Heuval, Milton Viorst, Ben Wattenberg, Lally Weymouth, Roger Wilkins, and Mortimer Zuckerman.

Bill Moyers knew who "they" were back in 1987

Bill Moyers knew who "they" were back in 1987

Great find

Re: Bill Moyers knew who "they" were back in 1987

Re: Good night, indeed.

Re: Good night, indeed.

Re: Good night, indeed.

Re: Good night, indeed.

Re: Good night, indeed.

CFR Member

Re: CFR Member

Re: CFR Member

Pugzley & HMW

on CFR membership

Re: on CFR membership

Re: CFR membership

Who is online